Genesis 1:
Darkness was first.
Light was next.
Darkness was followed by light.
The usage of "night" here was related to the darkness in verse 2. The usage of "day" here was related to the creation of the light and not the sun. Here I define the first day as the time elapsed from Genesis 1:2 to 1:5.
Could the first day be defined as a 24-hour earthly solar day?
I doubt it. The flow of time is not absolute but a relativistic experience. It depends on the local gravity or acceleration exerted on the time observer. To my reading, the first day seems short. God was the observer, 2 Peter 3:
This is not an equation but a simile. God is timeless and above time. There were no human observers there to experience the first day. The first day marked the creation of light and delineated it from the creation of the following day. These
days were markers of milestones of achievements placed by God.
See also
How old is the earth?.
No one acted as an observer during the inception of life, and neither the creation nor evolution model can be replicated in laboratory experiments. While there is substantial evidence supporting the concept of Creation as the correct explanation for origins, the belief in a Creation occurring within six literal days is primarily founded on Scriptural accounts. Below are some passages from Scripture that lend support to this perspective:
The Hebrew term for day, "yom," shares similarities with the English language, as it can refer to both a literal twenty-four-hour day and a more indefinite period of time, as seen in expressions like "For the day of the Lord is at hand" (Joel 1:15).
However, it's worth noting that when "yom" is used in conjunction with a numeral—such as "day one," "day two," "first day," "second day," and so on—it consistently signifies a literal twenty-four-hour day without exceptions. In the Genesis Creation narrative, "yom" is employed alongside numerals, indicating the author's intention for readers to interpret these as literal days lasting twenty-four hours.
During the Israelites' journey in the wilderness, God provided them with sustenance—manna—each morning. They were instructed to collect only enough for their immediate needs for that day, as any surplus would spoil by the following morning. However, on Fridays, they were directed to gather a double portion of manna because none would be available on the Sabbath (Saturday) morning.
Remarkably, the extra manna gathered on Friday for use on Saturday did not spoil, as described in Exodus 16:11-26. This serves as an illustration that the weekly Sabbath, recurring every seven literal days, continued to serve as a commemoration of the Creation week. Therefore, the weekly cycle provides evidence that the days of Creation were indeed literal days, each lasting twenty-four hours.
As a unit of time, the week lacks a foundation in the natural movements of the Earth, moon, or sun, unlike the day, the month, and the year, which are tied to astronomical phenomena. Apart from the Creation week as detailed in Genesis, there appears to be no inherent basis for the week as a unit of time. This observation further supports the notion that the Creation week described in Genesis consisted of seven literal days.
God designated the seventh day of the Creation week as a sacred day of rest. This practice of observing the Sabbath was upheld by the Israelites during their time in the wilderness and persisted through the era of Christ, as seen in passages like Luke 4:16 and Luke 23:55-56, and also during the time of the Apostle Paul, as indicated in Acts 17:2. Orthodox Jewish communities still faithfully observe the seventh-day Sabbath to this day. Despite changes made to calendars over the centuries, the unbroken continuity of the weekly cycle, which comprises seven days, remains intact. This continuity stands as evidence that the Creation week indeed consisted of seven literal days.
The perspective that each day in the Genesis Creation account represents an extended period of time, rather than literal twenty-four-hour days, presents certain challenges. For instance, according to Genesis, plants were created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-13), while sunlight was created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). If the third day were indeed an extended period, it raises questions about how plants could have thrived without sunlight. Similarly, many plants rely on insects for pollination, yet insects were not created until the sixth day (Genesis 1:24-25) if these days were meant to symbolize extended time periods.
The fourth commandment, as expressed in Exodus 20:8-11, establishes a clear connection between the seventh day (the Sabbath) and the weekly cycle. The word "remember" at the outset of this commandment holds significance, emphasizing the importance of the Sabbath within the context of a seven-day week. This admonition regarding days of labor and a day of rest would lose its meaning if the days were interpreted as extremely long eons of time, far exceeding human lifespans.
The wording of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis is most effectively interpreted as referring to literal days. Expressions like "day and night," "evening and morning," and "light and darkness" within the text are challenging to comprehend as indefinite periods of time. They strongly suggest a straightforward understanding of days as literal twenty-four-hour cycles.
Evolution encompasses two distinct aspects: minor change, referred to as microevolution, and major change, known as macroevolution.
Microevolution is readily observable within living organisms, as exemplified by the multitude of dog breeds or the diverse varieties of roses, among other examples. Both plants and animals can be selectively bred to develop specific characteristics, illustrating the concept of microevolution.
While microevolution, which involves minor changes within species, is widely demonstrated and accepted, macroevolution—major changes between species—remains a topic of ongoing debate. Evolutionists present various lines of evidence in support of macroevolution, but upon closer examination, some argue that the evidence may be weak, subject to alternative interpretations, or potentially incorrect. It's essential to distinguish between these two aspects of evolution: microevolution is widely regarded as a fact, while macroevolution is not definitively proven. However, macroevolution is a crucial component of the theory of evolution, as it is required to account for the origin of complex life forms from simpler organisms.
It's important to note that while some scientists may refer to evolution as a fact, they may be referring to the broader concept of evolutionary processes, which includes both microevolution and macroevolution. The search for a satisfactory mechanism to explain the transitions from simple to complex life forms (macroevolution) continues to be an active area of scientific research and inquiry.
To make an informed judgment between the perspectives of Creation and evolution, one must possess knowledge about the evidence supporting both viewpoints. By carefully and impartially examining the evidence for both positions, it is believed that individuals can arrive at their own conclusions. Upon such examination, the evidence for Creation by an Intelligent Being emerges as the stronger case.
.
